United States v. CESAR CERVANTES
1:24-cr-00072
S.D. Ohio
Aug 13, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARBIN HOXHA, Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cr-72 (4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

August 13, 2024

Judge Matthew W. McFarland

ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT‘S MOTION TO REVOKE BOND (Doc. 16)

This matter is before the Court on the Government‘s Motion to Revoke Bond (Doc. 16). Defendant has not filed a response in opposition, and the time to do so has passed. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a); S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 1.2. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court‘s review. For the reasons below, the Government‘s Motion to Revoke Bond (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

A federal grand jury returned a six-count Indictment charging eight defendants for their roles in trafficking controlled substances. (Indictment, Doc. 17.) Defendant Arbin Hoxha was specifically charged with one count of distributing five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). (Id. at Pg. ID 60.)

Following a detention hearing on July 8, 2024, the United States Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant rebutted the statutory presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A) and ordered Defendant released on bond with pretrial release conditions including house arrest and the surrender of Defendant‘s passport. (07/08/2024 Minute Entry.) Defendant waived extradition and agreed to surrender his passport. (See id.) On July 12, 2024, the Government moved for this Court to revoke Defendant‘s bond. (Motion, Doc. 16.) In its Motion, the Government argues that revocation is appropriate because Defendant: (1) operates a trucking company that takes him across the United States; (2) is an Albanian citizen who recently left the United States for several months; (3) was part of a drug-trafficking organization and transported about 90 kilograms of cocaine as a drug courier, and; (4) lived in California and lacks any ties to the Cincinnati area. (See id. at Pg. ID 52.)

LAW AND ANALYSIS

18 U.S.C. § 3142 governs the release or detention of a defendant pending trial. This Court has the authority to review a magistrate judge‘s original order of release or detention under § 3145(a)(1). The district court reviews a magistrate judge‘s order of release de novo. . Furthermore, the district court need not hold a hearing on a motion brought under § 3145(a). .

Under § 3142(e), a defendant may be detained pending trial only if a judicial officer “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” Where, as here, a defendant has been charged with a crime under the Controlled Substances Act that exposes him to a prison sentence of at least ten years, there is a rebuttable presumption for detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A); . A defendant can overcome this presumption if he provides some evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. .

The Government does not appear to challenge the Magistrate Judge‘s conclusion that Defendant rebutted the presumption of detention. (See Motion, Doc. 16, Pg. ID 54-55.) That said, the Court is not convinced. Although a defendant must produce some evidence to rebut the presumption, see , he does not meet this burden by providing just a little evidence in rebuttal, see, e.g., (holding that the defendant had not rebutted the presumption by offering letters showing his community ties and his mother offering to house him pending trial). Defendant asserted that he would not contest extradition to the United States. (See Extradition Waiver, Doc. 13.) This waiver may mitigate the risk of flight, but it is not enough to rebut the presumption that Defendant is a flight risk.

As the Government points out, nothing in that waiver prevents Defendant from fleeing or compels a country to honor the order. (See Motion, Doc. 16, Pg. ID 54-55.) Also, Defendant has no ties to the Cincinnati area or family in the United States, travels throughout the United States for work, and has recently left the United States for several months. (See Pretrial Services Report, Doc. 12, Pg. ID 35-37.) These circumstances—along with Defendant facing considerable prison time—show a serious risk of flight. See (stating that a defendant is a flight risk when he faces a lengthy prison sentence and has family abroad); (unpublished) (noting that the absence of ties to the forum state matters to evaluating risk of flight); (Tenuous ties to the community are a consideration for risk of flight.). Defendant thus remains a flight risk.

Nor has Defendant rebutted the presumption concerning dangerousness. Defendant is charged in connection with large-scale drug trafficking, for which the Government attributes about 90 kilograms of cocaine to Defendant. (See Motion, Doc. 16, Pg. ID 55-56.) The Sixth Circuit has recognized that drug-trafficking crimes are inherently dangerous to the community and warrant pre-trial detention. See (“[D]rug trafficking is a serious offense that, in itself, poses a danger to the community.“) (collecting cases). Thus, the presumption on dangerousness remains. That said, even if Defendant rebutted the presumption, detention is still appropriate.

“Regardless of whether the presumption applies, the government‘s ultimate burden is to prove that no conditions of release can assure that the defendant will appear and to assure the safety of the community.” . The Court considers the following to determine whether the Government has met this burden:

  1. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
  2. The weight of the evidence against the defendant;
  3. The history and characteristics of the defendant; and
  4. The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). On review of these factors, the Government has met its burden to show that detention is appropriate.

Nature and Circumstances of the Offense. The first factor favors detention. This factor looks to “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense ... involves ... a controlled substance.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). Defendant is charged with trafficking cocaine, which exposes him to a prison sentence of at least ten years. (See Indictment, Doc. 17, Pg. ID 60); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). The seriousness of the offense thus favors detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1); .

Weight of the Evidence. The weight of the evidence also favors detention. This factor “goes to the weight of the evidence of dangerousness, not the weight of the evidence of the defendant‘s guilt.” . The considerable evidence of Defendant‘s drug trafficking activity in turn indicates a considerable danger to the community. See . Thus, this factor favors detention.

Defendant‘s History and Characteristics. Turning to the third factor, Defendant‘s history and characteristics favor detention. Defendant has no ties to the area, and he has recently left the country for several months. (See Pretrial Services Report, Doc. 12, Pg. ID 35-36.) Although Defendant waived extradition (see Extradition Waiver, Doc. 13), the notable absence of any ties to the area and his connections abroad support detention. ; .

Nature and Seriousness of Danger to the Community. This last factor favors detention, as well. Defendant‘s arrest on drug charges and the presumption triggered by these charges indicate a serious risk of danger to the community. See ; . To be sure, Defendant‘s involvement in trafficking a sizeable amount of cocaine shows that he poses such a danger. Thus, this factor supports detention.

* * *

Detention is appropriate. Defendant has not rebutted the presumption for detention. And, even if he had, the § 3142(g) factors show that “no conditions of release can assure that the defendant will appear and to assure the safety of the community.” See . As a result, the Court grants the Government‘s Motion and revokes Defendant‘s bond.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following:

  1. The Government‘s Motion to Revoke Bond (Doc. 16) is GRANTED;
  2. Defendant‘s bond is REVOKED; and
  3. Defendant SHALL BE DETAINED in the custody of the United States Marshals Service pending trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

By: ______________________________

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

6

Read the detailed case summary